search_tools

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions semantic similarity and the search intent but doesn't describe output ranking, result limits, or edge cases. There's an output schema that may cover returns, but the description itself adds only basic context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences front-load the core function and add a practical use case. Every word earns its place; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with an output schema and clear parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention what happens with no results or whether it uses learned weights (given sibling tools), but overall it's complete enough for the task.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with query, mcp_filter, and max_results all described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches tools by objective or description using semantic similarity, which is a specific verb+resource+method. It distinguishes from siblings like list_available_mcps (which lists all tools) and execute_mcp_tool (which runs tools).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly notes it's useful when you don't know the exact tool name but know what you want to do, providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is clear enough to differentiate from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.